The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Literary trilogies to Category:Literary series with three entries

Nominator's rationale: Aren't these synonymous? Goustien (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the clash of parallel structures... Category:Literary trilogies follows its parent Category:Trilogies and sibling Category:Film trilogies, while Category:Literary series with three entries follows the naming of Category:Literary series by number of entries and siblings such as Category:Literary series with ten entries. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Category:Literary trilogies should probably be the surviving category, and Category:Literary series with three entries redirected to it, as trilogy is the widely-accepted name here. Robofish (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Robofish and WP:COMMONNAME. Hiding T 09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hiding and Robofish as no-one has ever said, "That series of three books about the ring that Tolkien wrote." Well, at least ot in an encyclopedia. Ironically, I see such trilogy in that category, but not the Trilogy category.... hmm... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low-emissions locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. There is not even an attempt at defining low-emission, and such a term would ultimately need to be defined arbitrarily. I have looked at several articles, and none of them make any claim of being "low emission" or contain emission details, so I fail to see even a subjective reason to include the articles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as subjective/arbitrary, per WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arizona law firms to Category:Law firms based in Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts law firms to Category:Law firms based in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the other state-specific subcategories of Category:Law firms of the United States, to match these categories' own subcategories (e.g., Category:Law firms based in Phoenix, Arizona, the only content in Category:Arizona law firms), and to clarify that these are only for law firms based in these states, not just any law firm that has offices there. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom per the outstanding reasons provided by nom Hmains (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for the sake of consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nominator. This is a speedy. Debresser (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 06:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, suggest deletion. Ray^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't empty now. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the series Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by country, per WP:OC#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As BrownHairedGirl points out, this does seem to fall into the exception to WP:OC#SMALL. Anyways, no one is liekly to ever gain entrance into this category, but there might be articles written about people that are already part of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Israeli Navy

Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units to Category:Special forces of the Israeli Navy

Category:Ships of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Ships of the Israeli Navy

Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Navy

Category:Frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Frigates of the Israeli Navy

Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Navy

Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Navy

Category:Submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Submarines of the Israeli Navy

Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Navy

Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Navy

Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Navy

Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Israel, Israeli Navy. Also, proposed name for Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units bring it in line with naming of parent category, Category:Special forces of Israel. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom - perfectly sensible course of action. Hazir (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever floats your boat Er... Rename per nom. Quite resonable, and a much more logical wording in English. (Though I'm unqualified to speak of Hebrew.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete; merging with Category:American captivity narrative, and articles are already there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20#Category:Indian captives for further discussion. --Xdamr^talk 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian captives to Category:to be determined by consensus - possibly "People captured by Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India. PamD (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to a simple Category:Native American captives. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That name would incorrectly suggest that the captives were Native American, not the captors. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:American captivity narrative. Most of the articles are appropriate tthere; I added those which were missing. Kelly-Larimer Massacre does not (though the story was related by Fanny Kelly, a member of the party), but I would argue that the capture is not defining there. The incident is chiefly of interest as a massacre, with the capture comprising one component of the event; compare at Fort Parker massacre, Indian Creek massacre, and others. I wonder if and how such people should intersect with Category:Prisoners and detainees or Category:Kidnapped people….- choster 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there you have it— the Kelly-Larimer articles have been deleted.- choster 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per choster. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - both the articles remaining here are already in Category:American captivity narrative anyway. Robofish (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 9#Venezuelan Navy categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Venezuelan Navy to Category:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Ships of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Patrol vessels of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Patrol vessels of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Venezuelan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Balao class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Balao class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Tench class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Tench class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Venezuela, Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (although this might also be a case for renaming the main article, if 'Venezuelan Navy' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, the article and the categories should be consistent.) Robofish (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the more intuitive and shorter name. I don't care what they decide to call their navy, it is still just their navy. Debresser (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is what we are calling their navy. (After all, they call it "Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela" since they speak Spanish and all.) Personally, I'm agnostic on what the name of the navy is—call it Hugo Chavez's collection of ships for all I care. I'm just hoping for consistency — Bellhalla (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep the status quo. Maybe I'm dead wrong- heck, it's likely I am- but the categories use a common convention, while the article uses the formal name. There's no unified standard on this- All articles about the Italian Navy are filed under Marina Militare a term unlikely to be familiar to non-Italian speakers. On the other hand, everything uses the French Navy not Marine nationale. These categories are under the common, logical name, and I'd leave them as is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Italian Navy can also refer to the pre-1946 Regia Marina which is why the distinction there. — 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• rename per nom. I would be inclined to match to the main article in these cases. If we want the way these are named to change, maybe we should try changing the article name first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aquaria in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: the 3 (and only) aquaria in North Carolina were long ago merged into a single article, this category is no longer necessary. RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a part of the overall structure of Category:Aquaria in the United States, per WP:OC#SMALL. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm confused, your !vote is labeled keep but you list a keep argument (structure in a larger categorization) and an delete argument (over categorization).--RadioFan (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read WP:OC#SMALL. It excludes from deletion "such categories [that] are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." postdlf (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the WP:OC#SMALL notation regarding categories that "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" ... which is exactly why this cat was created. This is also why the parent category, Category:Aquaria in the United States, is marked with the {{parentcat}} header that states "due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories" (with all of the child categories being "Aquaria in <state>"). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kralizec- this is a notable exception to WP:OC#SMALL. If we delete this category, the North Carolina Aquarium article no longer has a home in this scheme. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment any issue with North Carolina Aquariums living in Category:Zoos in North Carolina instead? --RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh... Maybe because if we go down this road, we're going to need to deleteCategory:Aquaria in South Carolina, Category:Aquaria in Maryland, Category:Aquaria in Alaska, Category:Aquaria in Colorado, as well as several others as well. It seems to me this is an established part of the category system. This issue needs to be not does Aquaria in North Carolina need to go (Because there will be very few states left if we get rid of all the single member categories), but does the whole system of seperating Zoos and Aquaria in the category system need to go? For that, I say no. A zoologist might use the terms "zoos and aquaria", but to the average people they are really quite different places. No one looking for an article on an aquaria will start down the category tree with "zoos". Now, an interesting idea might be to abolish the state-by-state category and just have Aquaria in the United States. Hmm. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosopher redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has only five members - clearly, it does not include all philosopher redirects. Its name is non-standard. I can't see any reason why it is helping the project. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggest notifying WikiProject Philosophy. This doesn't belong in the main category tree, but may be a use for this a project maintenance category, used on talk pages (like those generated by project banners). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some one can provide a satisfactory reason for its retention: we have had a number of nominations for reduirect categories recently. Have we been retaining them? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the WikiProject Philosophy has been informed on the day of the nomination, I'd say that if no good reasons are given to keep this, it should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cook Baronets to Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no potential for growth, per WP:OC#SMALL. There have only been five Cook Baronets, all of which are listed in the main article and can easily be interlinked through the succession boxes, as is usually done for baronets. There have been thousands of baronetcies, and I am aware of only one other category for an single baronetcy: McConnell Baronets, which I have nominated for deletion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications: a) category creator notified. b) WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neutral Already six articles, and the highly notable, and sadly dispersed, Cook art collection certainly deserves its own article (rather more so than any of its owners in fact) and may well get it one day. At least two of their houses have articles too. I don't see any harm in breaking up the enmormous baronet category with sub-categories for these confusing people, when there are (say) four or more articles. All 7 Gladstone baronets have articles for example. If a sub-category is set up a disam-type "Foo Baronets" article should be set up to include in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Johnbod, even if we set the threshold at four or more articles, have you any idea of how many categories that would create? My guess is hundreds, and subdiving into hundreds of tiny categories would be a navigational nightmare. If we go down that route, what about the many baronetcies which share the suranme with another baronetcy? Do we create a sub-category for each of the different baronetcies? Are what about the many baronetcies which changed name, as the 1st Baronet Snodgrass was succeeded by the 2nd Baronet Snograss-Cholmondely?
    Far from helping navigation (which is the primary purpose of categories), I fear that going down the category-for-each baronetcy path would create a navigational forest and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John Cook, Baronet, one looks for the article Cook Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:McConnell Baronets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous category for the McConnell Baronets, with no possibility for expansion. Only the first two two of the four holders of the title appear to be notable (the first as Lord Mayor of Belfast, the second as a Member of Parliament), and they are adequately linked through succession boxes and the main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes. a) Category creator notified. b) Under Category:Baronetcies, I can find only one other category for individual baronetcies: Category:Cook Baronets. And I'm about to nominate it for deletion too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two articles is too small, but see above. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John McConnell, Baronet, one looks for the article McConnell Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Madonna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Classic case of over-categorization. This is not a precedent we want to encourage. Every time someone, be it Madonna, Cher or the man in the moon, dates someone for some period of time, we'd be plastering categories everywhere. This is content for the main article only. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that this sort of thing sets a horrible precedent, but it seems to me that in an age of celebrity-obsession, close association with a mega-star such as Madonna may well be a defining characteristic of the notability of those in the category. I'd really like to say "extra-strong-delete", but I'm not sure that's justified. Can somebody please persuade me that I'm wrong to have reservations about getting rid of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone who isn't "associated" enough with Madonna, so as to be defined by that association and categorized directly by Category:Madonna (entertainer), shouldn't be categorized by that association. These should be people famous only (or primarily) because of that association. Maintaining a separate category for such people only invites a looser standard for categorization, so delete/upmerge as necessary. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- associated with is too vague to provide a satisfactory category. Does not a person who merely went to one of her concerts have an association? If kept it should be Category:People associated with Madonna (entertainer) to match the article, and discourage the addition of people associated with the Blessed Virgin Mary, the original Madonna. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too vague Victuallers (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominator is correct, we don't want this kind of thing. Anybody who's ever had any sort of professional, friendship, sexual or family relationship with her would belong in this category — and that's far too broad and poorly defined to be useful at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have rightly set a high standard for the potentially numberless "people by person" categories. It is generally sufficient to categorize by other means and tie these individuals through wikilinks and nav templates, and each individual listed in this category is indeed notable for reasons beyond his association with Ms. Ciccone.- choster 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Bearcat. Debresser (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beracat, and per Postdlf's reply to my concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category is far to vague to be useful. Wikipedia is not a fan-site. Hazir (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Backyard Wrestling video games to Category:Professional wrestling games

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. I suppose this isn't technically professional wrestling related, but nonetheless... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. (Category:Professional wrestling games could be renamed to simply Category:Wrestling games to accommodate it, but I don't think that's really necessary.) Robofish (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electronic Arts' NHL series to Category:Electronic Arts NHL series

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary apostrophe. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Technically the apostrophe is correct, but I feel we ought to avoid punctuation in categories where possible. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hardball! video games to Category:Baseball video games

Nominator's rationale: Only two members —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom (and even if Hardball II was created, I don't think we'd need it). Robofish (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at CFD December 18. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese baseball video games to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball

Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the contents, it's pretty clear it is not Japanese baseball, since several entries are about generic, cartoon, or North American baseball. I suppose they could be removed from the renamed category. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are there any major differences between baseball in the U.S. and in Japan? (Example, we don't consider the National and American leagues different games because of the Designated Hitter.) Are they different games, or somewhat different ways of playing the same game (I believe they are the latter.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would think this should be Category:Japanese video games about baseball. It's the video games that are Japanese, not the baseball. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe we should give the cartoon video games the category Category:Cartoon baseball video games, the Japanese baseball video games with the category Category:Japanese video games about baseball, and put all North American baseball games with the category Category:North American video games about baseball? GVnayR (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:World Stadium series to Category:Baseball video games

Nominator's rationale: Only one member —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, until such time as articles are created for the separate games. Robofish (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.